Working for a National IT Services Organisation I was responsible for being the lead engineer on a number of IT Infrastructure Projects for clients across the UK. This included requirements analysis, design and implementation of

This role required working within a small team with the main focus of developing and implementing Business Improvement Projects relating to the organisations IT Infrastructure Estate. In addition to this, I am also required to

I have an upcoming project where I will have to deploy 20-25 Win 7desktops for my company. I dread the idea of having to manage this amount of additional machines on the network as they are replacing telnet terminal thin clients.

I am interested in VMWare View but from what I have read it might be too costly and time consuming to implement, it may also not fit in well with our current environment. Currently we have Vsphere Essentials with Veeam Essentials Enterprise, we have two ESXI hosts and can add another server for this project.

Any ideas? Would love to stay with VMWare but how would a SMB setup View?

Ouch.. I was reading through the VDA license today and it is plain brutal (or robbery)!

It's because VDI is always a "something has already gone wrong" solution. It is never, ever what you "want". If everyone involved was doing things right, there is no call for VDI. VDI means that you are already trapped and looking for a shortcut that should never happen - almost always because you are using a software vendor whose product is crap and needs Windows desktop licensing to work.

VDI is never a desired solution, it's a fallback when better solutions have failed. Because of that, Microsoft knows that all VDI customers are already stuck and have no choice and most likely that they aren't being very discriminating. So they really take advantage of the situation - as any vendor will do in that case.

Every customer always has the option of fixing their software issues and moving to more appropriate models for far less money like RDS.

Not leaving terminal services, these are Linux thin clients that run a telnet/ssh session back to our POS server. We plan on upgrading to a new POS built on MySQL/ Jboss and it requires actual desktops(not very powerful) to run JavaWS, email client and print services.

I did try out Kaviza and might entertain it again then. One reason for going this route is to move to POE thin clients, we will protect the power to the switches and our Data Center is on a superb UPS/Generator, if we lose mains we can keep sales going.

We are also a two man shop and I would like to cut down on the amount of hardware we have to maintain. When I first came on board last year I started a desktop refresh project and built 15 custom AMD Phenom II x945 machines running Windows 7 to replace horrid HP D220MT desktops running XP. There are still a number of desktops that have to be replaced and I like the idea of having thin clients spare and provisioning a Win7 VM when a desktop is needed.

Not leaving terminal services, these are Linux thin clients that run a telnet/ssh session back to our POS server. We plan on upgrading to a new POS built on MySQL/ Jboss and it requires actual desktops(not very powerful) to run JavaWS, email client and print services.

I'm obviously missing something. I don't see anything in here that would even suggest the use of Windows let alone VDI. Sounds like you should be using remote terminals and thin clients if you want to maintain nothing or light desktops if that is required. This is a web app so it sounds like there are no requirements at all.

Why are you looking at Windows if this is an all Linux system?

You have a Linux server, Linux thin clients... I'm not even sure that you need anything else at all. But if you do, why not make that be Linux too?

The current version is a Linux system but the version we will be moving to runs on Server 2008r2. Of course MySQL/ JBOSS are primarily run on Linux but the vendor list Windows 7 as the preferred client for email / printing functions. I am also more comfortable working in a Windows Client / Server environment.

The current version is a Linux system but the version we will be moving to runs on Server 2008r2. Of course MySQL/ JBOSS are primarily run on Linux but the vendor list Windows 7 as the preferred client for email / printing functions. I am also more comfortable working in a Windows Client / Server environment.

MySQL runs WAY better on Linux than on Windows.

I'm still a bit lost. They list a client... but no client is needed at all, right? There is no software involved here, just a web browser. So even if you are comfortable on Windows 7... that is still an extra piece, so going with nothing at all seems like it would be the best solution no matter how comfortable you are with an extra piece.

Simplicity should always be given a big priority.

VDI is not simple or cheap. It's a niche, large scale product that almost never applies in the SMB and when it does it normally screams at you that it is needed.

Currently we have Vsphere Essentials with Veeam Essentials Enterprise, we have two ESXI hosts and can add another server for this project.

First of all with VDI/VMware View you would run a dedicated cluster (licensing/performance among other reasons) so you would want 2 hosts.

Chaz5366 wrote:

Hi All,

I have an upcoming project where I will have to deploy 20-25 Win 7desktops for my company. I dread the idea of having to manage this amount of additional machines on the network as they are replacing telnet terminal thin clients.

I'm confused how managing 20-25 Machines in a virtual Environmental is that much different from VDI or even that difficult. Just get some good Patching and Imaging software, setup profile redirection to a virtual file server. Learn to use Microsoft Group Policy Object and lock the environment down like Fort Knox from day one. Install a web filter and turn it up to 11. Don't give anyone local admin powers, and if they "need it" explain that all tech support for them will be re-imaging their machine. Make sure to buy all the same PC (Use Dell Optiplex's as you can get replacements for the same model with exactly the same parts for years making imaging simple). Unless you need the features that are unique to VDI (Data located in data center for security, remote access models).

If you are really that worried, get windows embedded thin clients, and mandate that ALL software purchased must support a web browser and preferably is hosted, and go for hosted options whenever you can. Get something like VMware Octopus for file services. Heck just by doing this you might discover that you never need an IT guy.

I am interested in VMWare View but from what I have read it might be too costly and time consuming to implement

A week professional services includes building the images and some admin straining. Bare bones deployment with a simple image with office you might be able to pull 3 days. 4-6k in professional services. If you do more of the prep work (get VM hosts online, configure storage, have a 2008R2 template ready, and ISO's uploaded) can shorten things.

Chaz5366 wrote:

Any ideas? Would love to stay with VMWare but how would a SMB setup View?

Don't. I see View as really not that complicated, but somehow every SMB self deployment I've ever walked into was absolutely an abomination that would have been better served by paying someone (I don't say this is self interest I promise).

I have an upcoming project where I will have to deploy 20-25 Win 7desktops for my company. I dread the idea of having to manage this amount of additional machines on the network as they are replacing telnet terminal thin clients.

The overhead of VDI pays for itself in the multiple hundreds of clients. What you're looking for is Windows RDS.

You install a single (or multiple, but probably don't need more than one) Windows 2008R2 server and create/share desktops on that server. Then instead of getting/installing full blown Win7 on the PCs, install ThinPC.

I've been looking into this too, and it seems that the only VDI solution worth looking at right now for SMB is Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, formerly Kaviza. Everything else I've seen is far too complex and expensive.

I've been looking into this too, and it seems that the only VDI solution worth looking at right now for SMB is Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, formerly Kaviza. Everything else I've seen is far too complex and expensive.

What annoys me about Kaviza is they played games with their cost models to look cheaper. Listing Microsoft OS cost as $100 (A single year of VDA) and not showing the 3-5 years cost made them look cheaper than desktops, but at best caused people to get hit for thousands of dollars after the fact, or be unkowingly software pirates.

I will say the scale out system they do is cool, and for smaller environments is pretty effective.

I've been looking into this too, and it seems that the only VDI solution worth looking at right now for SMB is Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, formerly Kaviza. Everything else I've seen is far too complex and expensive.

The big cost of VDI is the Windows licensing. Citrix doesn't solve that. It might be a nice solution but it isn't dramatically better than anything else out there. There is plenty of "free" VDI - nothing more than the Windows licensing. But the crux of the issue is the licensing and there is no getting around that. VDI simply is expensive.

Ouch.. I was reading through the VDA license today and it is plain brutal (or robbery)!

It's because VDI is always a "something has already gone wrong" solution. It is never, ever what you "want". If everyone involved was doing things right, there is no call for VDI. VDI means that you are already trapped and looking for a shortcut that should never happen - almost always because you are using a software vendor whose product is crap and needs Windows desktop licensing to work.

VDI is never a desired solution, it's a fallback when better solutions have failed. Because of that, Microsoft knows that all VDI customers are already stuck and have no choice and most likely that they aren't being very discriminating. So they really take advantage of the situation - as any vendor will do in that case.

Every customer always has the option of fixing their software issues and moving to more appropriate models for far less money like RDS.

Well you pretty much hit the nail on the head for my case. The first thing I did while evaluating the product was to run the client from XenApp, unfortunately you need a separate IP and hostname to setup "workstations" for each user.

Well you pretty much hit the nail on the head for my case. The first thing I did while evaluating the product was to run the client from XenApp, unfortunately you need a separate IP and hostname to setup "workstations" for each user.

If it is ONLY IP and hostname, skip normal VDI and look at using Windows Server 2008 R2 datacenter edition. You get unlimited instances so if you aren't completely screwed by your software vendor, it is often cheaper. No VDI licensing needed but works in the same manner.

RDS (Terminal Services) can be configured for Unique IP's per user logging in. You could put a unique a reccord onto each IP if its only a one way relationship, or see if you can set an environment variable with a login script that the application can key off of instead.

VDI is never a desired solution, it's a fallback when better solutions have failed. Because of that, Microsoft knows that all VDI customers are already stuck and have no choice and most likely that they aren't being very discriminating. So they really take advantage of the situation - as any vendor will do in that case.

I'd say that protecting their OEM licensing channel is at least as important to them. If not more so.

VDI is never a desired solution, it's a fallback when better solutions have failed. Because of that, Microsoft knows that all VDI customers are already stuck and have no choice and most likely that they aren't being very discriminating. So they really take advantage of the situation - as any vendor will do in that case.

I'd say that protecting their OEM licensing channel is at least as important to them. If not more so.

Typically the vendors whose software causes a need for VDI are not in the OEM program with Microsoft since even the most casual adherence to Microsoft recommendations or the most basic clue about writing Windows software protects you from ever needed to use VDI. VDI really indicates that you are getting software from an amateur shop that isn't able to understand Microsoft's advice or really hates their own customers.

VDI is never a desired solution, it's a fallback when better solutions have failed. Because of that, Microsoft knows that all VDI customers are already stuck and have no choice and most likely that they aren't being very discriminating. So they really take advantage of the situation - as any vendor will do in that case.

I'd say that protecting their OEM licensing channel is at least as important to them. If not more so.

Typically the vendors whose software causes a need for VDI are not in the OEM program with Microsoft since even the most casual adherence to Microsoft recommendations or the most basic clue about writing Windows software protects you from ever needed to use VDI. VDI really indicates that you are getting software from an amateur shop that isn't able to understand Microsoft's advice or really hates their own customers.

VDI is never a desired solution, it's a fallback when better solutions have failed. Because of that, Microsoft knows that all VDI customers are already stuck and have no choice and most likely that they aren't being very discriminating. So they really take advantage of the situation - as any vendor will do in that case.

I'd say that protecting their OEM licensing channel is at least as important to them. If not more so.

Typically the vendors whose software causes a need for VDI are not in the OEM program with Microsoft since even the most casual adherence to Microsoft recommendations or the most basic clue about writing Windows software protects you from ever needed to use VDI. VDI really indicates that you are getting software from an amateur shop that isn't able to understand Microsoft's advice or really hates their own customers.